skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hard to resist because it's baked into our DNA a bit, but in reality it's an illusion when you consider concept of the 1%. That said, if can be pulled off, which has been proven to be done countless times, the workers (maybe not founder) are generally better off financially.
Only if it's true. Right now it's some guy on twitter quoting his unnamed friend...
The same could be said about decentralization of information sources. And big tech seems to be trying to contain it rather than embrace it. Maybe not because they want, but because they get political pressure.

If big tech can't embrace those new decentralization currents because of political pressure, people will look for them somewhere else.
Sudo Vulnerability CVE-2021-3156
It's not a documentary?
I miss my 20 minute bike ride between work and home. That bike-ride truly separated work-life from home-life. It cleared my head, and I got some exercise in. I really miss that.

And no, just going cycling or walking for an hour or so during the day isn't the same. I don't know why.
It doesn't support WebExtensions (i.e. Chrome/Firefox extensions) unfortunately - see the FAQ in https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/30 for some details.

However, the new built-in adblocker does a big part of what uBlockOrigin does. As for uMatrix, there's https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jmatrix (though it's a rather unofficial hack, and I have no idea if it still works with v2.0.0).

I'd really like to integrate something uMatrix-like (with nice keyboard usage) into qutebrowser some day, but so far I didn't get around to it: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/28
> "Ma, a larger-than-life figure, criticized China's financial regulatory system last year.He now appears to have been brought to heel by Beijing."

You can be larger than life in China, you just cant be larger than CCP.
Also how do you quantify a bad trade? How much lost money? I trade on Robinhood too (not GME though), and just two weeks back I lost money on Nio stock.

Is that a bad trade? Should Robinhood have stopped me from buying that stock?
> Bay Area SWE salaries inflated via competition in a way I suspect completely deflates with area pressure off.

It will be very interesting to see just how big the pool of people who can pass the interviews[0] but weren't willing to relocate is.

The demographics (and housing prices!) in the tech hubs reflect a big influx of highly-paid developers. If only 10% of the folks who could pass those interviews and get those offers were willing to relocation, that'll cause a much larger downward pressure on prices than if, say, 75% were, in which case the pool doesn't expand as much.

[0] the usefulness of the algorithm interview can be debated, but I don't see remote work putting any pressure on this process
Front End Trends for 2021
Webull is also blocking purchases of GME right now: https://twitter.com/WebullGlobal/status/1354828729713881091
Hard for me to think of a time when one of those services stopped all of their users from taking an action fundamental to the service. Particularly an action regulated by securities law.
An internalizer must match displayed NBBO at the exchanges. If it can’t, it has to route to the exchange, pay exchange fees, and on top of that still pay for the order flow.

Normally internalizers have no problem competing with spreads on the exchanges, because retail flow is much less toxic than the sophisticated traders in the public venues. But with GME, the retail investors are running the show.

Therefore it no longer makes sense for internalizers to pay for this order flow.
In a traditional corporation you wont get fired for hiring devs with many years of experience in the correct stacks. That is the most important incentive. If you hire devs with experience in the wrong stacks and it doesn't work out people will start asking questions, why did you hire this guy even though he didn't know the things we need?
How Can New Deep Learning Initiatives Overcome Challenges in Robotics?
... which links to the WSJ as their source. Not exactly plagiarism, but definitely reporting based on other people's reporting.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-mas-ant-plans-major-revamp...
Richest men, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, fight over satellite fleets
At some point, trolling becomes indistinguishable from mental illness and crackpottery.
And the opposite is exceedingly frustrating: when someone starts explaining something in terms of base concepts you've never even heard of, and you have to stop them every few seconds to fill in the blanks (and then some of those explanations have holes of their own, etc). In some cases you may be so new to a topic that you don't even know which questions to ask, so it's impossible for you to shepherd them into telling you what you need to know.
I see little outrage about this. The outrage is about illegally manipulating the market in broad daylight by preventing retail investors from purchasing a stock.

Is a user expected to tolerate illegal activity because the businesses customer demands it of them? If you have any doubt what Robinhood is doing is illegal (setting aside that it's clearly morally reprehensible), then I encourage you to read the suit that was just filed https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.553175...
I heard there was an existing regulation about selling > 100% of a float short?
> the outrage is over a short of GME being a customer

Do we have any evidence Citadel is materially net short GME?

They bailed out Melvin Capital. But Melvin Capital announced that they closed out their short position. And bailing out Melvin Capital isn't the same thing as assuming their positions.
>Why wouldn't you short GME after the price has risen so high?

Because the stock is already over 100% short and an army of retail investors is purchasing it
> and the average person moves almost once every two years

Are you sure? There's lot of research n rent control and it basically all highlights decreased housing mobility, event he pro rent control authors mention it asa downside.
Personally, I hate being fully remote and will probably not stay at a job that is permanently full remote. I live alone in a fairly small apartment, and only have space to work at the same desk that I use for recreation. I find myself unfocused more easily, which leads to being less productive, which leads to working more, which leads to being less productive, etc. I have started going into the office alone just to get some separation.

For context, I'm also much more extroverted than the average developer - I suspect that also has something to do with my absolute dislike of full remote working.
If you're one of the big and established brokerages you can provide commission-less trading through other means - portfolio management fees, doing bank things.

For the smaller guys like RH though your point still stands.
Maybe it also stems from the global diversity of the employees in said companies.

To the European eye the idea of allowing any and all public utterance feels like a free ticket to disaster.

Deliberate and carefully crafted representation of "reality", and indirect communication via various "trusted channels" is part of winning elections anywhere.

The carefully and orchestrated use of mass media in the 1920s and 1930s, skillfully crafted to lead the electorate to certain political choices, was later used to even accept certain political atrocities (internment camps in the beginning, war and industrial mass murder later).

So to protect the electorate (!) from being grossly misled, many European countries in the aftermath of the 1940s decided to counterbalance the freedom of speech with rules what is not freedom of speech.

And yes, the details are tricky and courts have to decide.

Is that ever in the public debate in the USA? Reasonable limits to free speech?

Here is a fairly straightforward example from the German penal code:

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html
Where have you read that Citadel has short positions? Buying a portion of Melvin Capital after they suffered big losses is absolutely not the same.
meh, elastic should have gone with the affero gpl since the beginning imho. something like a dual license: you want the free stuff? here's the affero gpl license. you don't want the affero gpl license? contact sales and a custom license for the current version will be arranged.

RIP elasticsearch, I guess.
Amazon Is Building a Machine Learning Research Center at USC
And forcefully selling peoples' shares now as well.
Chromium/WebKit is available as a library in various ways; Gecko isn't really.

I had hoped for Servo to fill that gap at some point, but so far that hasn't happened yet: https://github.com/servo/servo/issues/27579

Another possibility is for Geckoview to be ported to Desktop platforms some day: https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ - something the people behind Tridactyl would like to happen: https://tridactyl.xyz/ideas/#port-geckoview-to-x86_64
I don't pretend to be an industry expert but things seem different now, in this day of Everything-as-a-Service and subscriptions-as-primary-revenue-streams, from when Free Software first became A Thing.

It's just so easy these days for a corporate parasite like Amazon or Sony to rip off your hard work (ElasticSearch, BSD) and contribute essentially nothing back.

The SSPL seems like a perfectly rational response to this newly-emerged phenomenon.
> Moving us back toward a world where protocols are dominant over platforms could be of tremendous benefit to free speech and innovation online.

Let's say I agree with this, what's the next step? What's the "call to action"?

> It would represent a radical change, but one that should be looked at seriously.

Okay. Looked at by whom?

I would say we already have the protocols (Napster was founded in 1999, P2P protocols are old enough to drink.) Then what?

(My own cynical reaction is that people like what they have and deserve what they get. But I recognize and admit that that is not a productive area of discussion.)

Given that pirating movies is unfashionable now, what could some P2P protocol offer that would entice people away from FAANG? (Assuming that that would be a net benefit to humanity and the world is itself more of a hope than something you could prove one way or another. Does anyone have any sort of science that could even begin to predict the results of any of this?)
It looks like on their pro product $1 is the minimum, so most retail trades would be $1 but not well under that. Their “lite” offering is free but subsidized by PFOF.
There are a lot of assumptions going into that implication. My experience with working remotely, on globally distributed teams, for about 20 years now is:

* Synchronous high-bandwidth communication (read: meeting, ideally with a shared whiteboard) is pretty handy sometimes.

* Timezones really do matter. If you want a sync meeting that includes people in Europe, the US, and APAC, someone will have a bad time. If you want quick turnaround on code reviews, having 8-12 hour time zone differences is a significant barrier. Even a "4-hour" difference for meeting time purposes can be a huge problem in this sense: it's 9pm on Thursday where you are (US West coast), but your coworkers' weekend has started (in New Zealand), so any code reviews you ask for on Friday morning you won't see until you get back to work on Monday. And any code reviews they ask for on their Monday morning won't happen until you get back to work on their Tuesday.

* Language matters. Even if everyone involved speaks English to some extent, it's a _lot_ easier to follow some accents than others, especially on an imperfect (read: teleconference) audio feed. Which accents depends on which people.

* Shared context matters, just in terms of understanding requirements. This can be developed, but it takes time. People from more similar backgrounds often require less time to get to mutual understanding around this sort of thing. This needs to be weighed against blinkered thinking and lack of diversity in perspectives, of course.

I love working remotely, and am used to the scheduling issues around this sort of thing, but there are a _lot_ of issues that come with hiring someone halfway across the globe that you don't get with hiring someone also working remotely but in the same city or at least speaking more or less your accent of your language and within an hour or two timezone distance. The fact that the latter works for a particular position does not imply the former will.
It's just so blatantly obvious. It reminds me that the final layer of competition is governance, and these "unicorns" funded by the VC-finance industrial complex are going to lose out in the end when eventually good actors come into play.
If we take global warming seriously, then all of us who can work from home will end up working from home. If we take global warming seriously, we will incentivize using less energy, at least until we have mostly replaced non-carbon neutral energy. If we incentivize using less energy, there will be pressure not to commute.

Unless there is an analysis that shows there are energy benefits to centralizing your workforce(more efficient coffee machines, lighting, HVAC, etc), the pressure will be there to let them stay at home.
If curious see also

2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070367

2017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15458824

2014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8774609
Not if you were black and used crack. And pretty much any prison for posession and use is rediculous, if its a problem for the user it is a mental health issue and prison is the wrong treatment. And of course the limits on what determines if you're a dealer is set low enough, and carrier laws meant that many users were getting prosecuted like dealers. And what defines a "dealer" since someone doing a group buy for three friends is significantly less socially problematic than someone trafficking drugs across the border.
We do learn from our mistakes, which allows us to make new mistakes. We learned how to free our currencies from their chains of gold and allowed the money supply to respond to the demands of the economy. We learned how inflation is a monetary phenomenon and tamed it with interest rates. We learned how the business cycle propagates itself and introduced countercyclical policies to damp it down. We found that the Great Moderation promoted speculation in real estate, causing the GFC, and responded to that with stress tests and capital buffers in our financial institutions. We have come through a pandemic with our economy running, jobs preserved and society intact. I can't wait to see what the next crisis will be, because the solution will make us even smarter and wealthier.
> forcefully selling peoples' shares

Is this a reference to margin calls?
Hey, the webapp Hotwire was extracted from isn’t a webapp?
I don't think zero-moderation is possible, at a minimum you'll have to ban bots and spam. The larger problem is concentration of communities in 3-4 big providers, there was heavy moderation before, but it was easy to move to a different community if you didn't like it.
Doesn't it unwind by just reversing the process? D buys the stock back from E and returns it to C. Then B buys the stock back from C and gives it to A.

That all sounds perfectly ordinary, as long as it doesn't happen on a deadline. If you tell D or B that they have to buy that stock right now at any price, they're going to take it in the (ahem) shorts. But if they were permitted to take their time, they'd buy it up at the market price, which would on average be pretty near the price they sold it.

It just so happens that there is a mechanism by which they can be forced to buy that stock right now, which is when F decides just on a whim to pay 100x the market price, and protection measures kick in. That's a screw-up on the part of B and D; they got sloppy and deserve to get raked over the coals for it. Everybody who wants to play that game needs to be aware of that scenario, and now they are.

But I don't think it's because there's anything impossible about having more shorts than stocks. It just takes an already risky thing and makes it super subject to manipulation.
OK, I'll play :)

Flesh this story out. Who said this to whom? How did it go from here to a decision to shut down buys (but not sells). This isn't vanguard. It's a daytrading app.

Not to mention that this is near suicidal for robinhood. That's why the Citadel story resonates with people.

The only non-cabal story I can think of (I know I said it was hard, but I thought hard... swear) is that they ran out of cash, or are hedged poorly and trying to trade their way out of a hole. Cabal still seems more likely. I wonder how reliant on Citadel Robinhood is for long tail emergency capital.
Musk didn't even make any profit from that (he didn't sell) and he still was fined $20 million and had to give up his Tesla board chair.
Is Tesla getting rebates at this point?

You say it's obvious, but I'd though EVs were subsidized at the time of launch and Tesla has burned through all of their subsidies.
if RobinHood can just pay whatever fine and continue operating as normal, then it's effectively legal for any entity of RobinHood's wealth.
wtf? no, lol.

I don't think anyone sane would even suggest that unless very specific stuff
Please provide evidence they have closed their short other than them talking their portfolio.
I had hoped for Servo to fill that gap at some point, but so far that hasn't happened yet: https://github.com/servo/servo/issues/27579

Another possibility is for Geckoview to be ported to Desktop platforms some day: https://mozilla.github.io/geckoview/ - something the people behind Tridactyl would like to happen: https://tridactyl.xyz/ideas/#port-geckoview-to-x86_64
Discord bans a server for hateful content
Knowledge is why you build your own apps
OK, we can take 'early' out of the title above.
They don't give a hoot if you lose your money. They've stopped taking new positions because they don't want to lose their money.
I've managed my fair share of big-boy risk. I personally believe myself to be qualified.

People should be permitted to buy publicly traded corporate assets. Your gambling analogy doesn't apply here. Robinhood saw fit to approve these people for brokerage accounts (and in many cases options trading). They were allowed to walk into the exchange so to speak, up until the point that they found a favorable position that they wanted to keep trading despite elevated volatility.

It's not the government's job to tell one class of people that they cannot participate in asset markets, while repeatedly bailing out a totally different class of people that blunders its role in the very same markets.
> Citadel and other hedge funds short selling take over to pulls the strings from underneath some trading apps, including Robinhood.

Webull's clearing firm forced their hand.
> Interactive Brokers also offers a "Lite" version that is pointed at a similar market to RobinHood (no fees, no comissions).

Who charges fees or commissions on stock trading anymore?
I don't think that is correct. They stopped options trading in it not 100% cash backed stock buying or 300% cash backed shorting. I think their position is fairly reasonable and as an account holder there I don't want people going crazy on leverage on this amount of volatility.
We could generalize further and say that's what the entire window manager of an OS represents. Though, there's a difference between 'currently loaded' and just the address, and for less-than-high-end computers, that difference can mean a lot.

That graph also contains a lot of noise - e.g. documents that aren't needed. I wonder if VR would help, by letting us see more, or if that better paradigm could also be implemented on 2D screens.

There's already various graph visualization tools. But the tricky part would be wrapping that up into something useful - like a tree graph vs. tree style tabs. And if this would be more than 1-dimensional, like TST, then it would likely have to be a full page.
Those other 'risky' assets aren't having 50% drawdowns.
what on earth?!?!

I can understand mandatory liquidation due to margin requirements. But AFAIK those don't show up as "orders" on your account that you can see in time to try to cancel.
FWIW I use something similar for KeePassXC: https://github.com/firecat53/keepmenu
There's no problem with shorting multiple times - you simply have to be trusted to pay up the time comes. It's easy to do.

Suppose there is 1 share in existence, A promises to sell it to B and to C if price reaches X. If price gets there, A is on the hook to pay up. So now A has to buy the share if not held, or have it already. A sells out to B, fulfilling the contract to B. Now A needs that share again, so has to offer B a price to buy it, and does so. Now A closes out with C.

It's vastly easier when there's lots of shares, because it's easier to find a seller each time you have to close out multiple contracts.

This is done in pretty much every part of the economy. When you put money in a bank, it can be lent. Now the bank has a debt (to you) and an asset (money owed to them by the lendee) that balance. That lendee can also lend the same money, again incurring a matching debt and asset.

None of this is voodoo back market evil. It's common sense used to allocate resources, has been done for millennia in many forms.

It's funny watching naive traders get upset over it simply because they don't understand how their own markets work. It will be funny and sad watching them learn even more about how markets work in the coming days.
Not real time, but theres this wallstreetbets post from yesterday.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l642ms/upda...
I didn't say there is such a law. I'm just saying it's not a case of
"two sides disagreed on the true value of the company". It's not so symmetric.

One side was selling short because they believed (not unreasonably) that GameStop's core business is in trouble and is likely to go bankrupt (or at least more likely to lose value than gain it).

The other side was buying long not because they believed GameStop was likely to reinvent itself, but only because they noticed a lot of funds had sold it short and saw a short squeeze coming. They wouldn't have bought at the current stock price if the other guys hadn't sold short.
This is very useful! Thanks!
I'm genuinely stunned that Robinhood would run over their #1 persona like this. I doubt they will ever recover
I agree with Robinhood's fears on principle. What however riles up people (legitimately IMO) is that larger funds making equally suspect trades are basically let off with a slap on the wrist.

A strong argument could be made that Tesla's stocks last year have been pumped up irrationally by funds last year too, and if a market correction comes the funds behind it will face zero to minimal consequences. Same in 2008.

At the end of the day, the differential rules for individual traders and big funds riles people up.
While I agree, one predictable counter-argument is that Twitter et al are private organizations with a legal prerogative to ban whomever they like (freedom of association). This is true, but we should think about how this was intended to work and the property that this was designed to protect: the original idea was that you had a decentralized network of communities that could individually excommunicate whomever they liked (freedom of association) but any individual was still allowed to participate in the broader network, the public square. Now, social media has become the de facto public square--a small group of social media companies hold dominion over an overwhelming amount of our speech--worse, these companies coordinate with each other to behave as a single large entity. We shouldn't get distracted by the fact that Twitter is a de facto public square and not a de jure public square, because we want to protect the functional property. We can do that either by regulating Twitter like we would regulate the public square, or we can do it by breaking up this powerful trust of corporations (I favor the latter).